RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (5) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 >   
  Topic: Complexity vs. Information< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Turncoat



Posts: 129
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2008,00:59   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 28 2008,15:58)
 
Quote (Turncoat @ Aug. 28 2008,15:55)
The fact is that I'll be obsoleting anything they publish, anyway.

*Proffers High-Five*  :p

My results are solid -- I'm preparing a presentation and a paper.

--------------
I never give them hell. I just tell the truth about them, and they think it's hell. — Harry S Truman

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2008,01:31   

The math may be beyond me but I'm sure folks like Wes could offer you a good critique, if you'd like.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2008,06:16   

Quote (Turncoat @ Aug. 28 2008,15:55)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 28 2008,09:46)
That reminds me... has anyone seen the Marks/Dembski collaborations appear in print anywhere yet?

Though I suppose that if they do, notice is likely to be given the IDC equivalent of a ticker-tape parade, appearing on the DI blog, the ID-the-Future blog, UD, TT, and however many DO'L blogs there are at the time.

Nothing in print that I know of. The fact is that I'll be obsoleting anything they publish, anyway.

I will make a direct response whenever a paper shows up.

"Obsolete" doesn't seem the right word; it carries an implication that there was some period of time where the thing in question actually worked.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2008,07:18   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 29 2008,01:31)
The math may be beyond me but I'm sure folks like Wes could offer you a good critique, if you'd like.

I can at least speak to Dembski's history of claims with respect to information theory and evolutionary computation. I was the guy who set him the task of explaining away EC back at the 1997 NTSE conference. My example there was a GA that produces short tours for the Traveling Salesman Problem. It's an example Dembski has never come to grips with. The class of problem, NP-hard, sets both intelligent agents and evolutionary computation on the same level, seeking approximate solutions rather than exact optimal solutions for any non-trivial number of cities in the tour. The evaluation function is too simple to even try to claim that the solution state is incorporated into it: total cost for each tour. Instead, Dembski has been making a career out of misunderstanding even Dawkins' pedagogical example, the weasel program. So far, he has not even managed to describe the weasel program correctly.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2008,11:25   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 29 2008,08:18)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 29 2008,01:31)
The math may be beyond me but I'm sure folks like Wes could offer you a good critique, if you'd like.

I can at least speak to Dembski's history of claims with respect to information theory and evolutionary computation. I was the guy who set him the task of explaining away EC back at the 1997 NTSE conference. My example there was a GA that produces short tours for the Traveling Salesman Problem. It's an example Dembski has never come to grips with. The class of problem, NP-hard, sets both intelligent agents and evolutionary computation on the same level, seeking approximate solutions rather than exact optimal solutions for any non-trivial number of cities in the tour. The evaluation function is too simple to even try to claim that the solution state is incorporated into it: total cost for each tour. Instead, Dembski has been making a career out of misunderstanding even Dawkins' pedagogical example, the weasel program. So far, he has not even managed to describe the weasel program correctly.

I get the impression that even DDrr.. Dembski's MESA program was more powerful than he bargained for, so he dropped it when it didn't give confirmatory answers.

All science so far!

--------------
I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2008,12:54   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 29 2008,07:18)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 29 2008,01:31)
The math may be beyond me but I'm sure folks like Wes could offer you a good critique, if you'd like.

I can at least speak to Dembski's history of claims with respect to information theory and evolutionary computation. I was the guy who set him the task of explaining away EC back at the 1997 NTSE conference. My example there was a GA that produces short tours for the Traveling Salesman Problem. It's an example Dembski has never come to grips with. The class of problem, NP-hard, sets both intelligent agents and evolutionary computation on the same level, seeking approximate solutions rather than exact optimal solutions for any non-trivial number of cities in the tour. The evaluation function is too simple to even try to claim that the solution state is incorporated into it: total cost for each tour. Instead, Dembski has been making a career out of misunderstanding even Dawkins' pedagogical example, the weasel program. So far, he has not even managed to describe the weasel program correctly.

I have been wondering whether the weasel program could be run as a web page where viewers could vote on the strings to live and reproduce based not on a match to a given string, but on arbitrary criteria known only to each participant.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2008,13:17   

Quote

I have been wondering whether the weasel program could be run as a web page where viewers could vote on the strings to live and reproduce based not on a match to a given string, but on arbitrary criteria known only to each participant.


The only "why not" there would be the high degree of interaction required. If web weasel loads in consensus-making on top of the usual weasel evaluations, I expect that one could have closer to ten times the usual number of evaluations needed. I'm not sure how to attract enough user attention to do that not just once, but often enough to get good statistics on the dynamics.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2008,13:20   

Do you have a ballpark estimate?


Richard Dawkin's website readers are quite numerous.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2008,13:31   

Actually, thinking about it a bit more, I don't know that it would require more evaluations. If most strings collect no votes at all, that is a default evaluation of no merit. It is only if one requires that all candidate strings get some evaluation that the very large number of evaluations comes in. OK, it might not be infeasible.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Turncoat



Posts: 129
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2008,14:22   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 29 2008,07:18)
     
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 29 2008,01:31)
The math may be beyond me but I'm sure folks like Wes could offer you a good critique, if you'd like.

I can at least speak to Dembski's history of claims with respect to information theory and evolutionary computation. I was the guy who set him the task of explaining away EC back at the 1997 NTSE conference. My example there was a GA that produces short tours for the Traveling Salesman Problem. It's an example Dembski has never come to grips with. The class of problem, NP-hard, sets both intelligent agents and evolutionary computation on the same level, seeking approximate solutions rather than exact optimal solutions for any non-trivial number of cities in the tour. The evaluation function is too simple to even try to claim that the solution state is incorporated into it: total cost for each tour. Instead, Dembski has been making a career out of misunderstanding even Dawkins' pedagogical example, the weasel program. So far, he has not even managed to describe the weasel program correctly.

Personally, I would stay away from using solution of traveling salesperson problems with genetic algorithms as an example. TSP is the prototype of problems for which GA researchers have designed custom representations and reproduction operators. David Goldberg's Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning (1989) gives special attention to TSP.

The Dembski-Marks paper with the misrepresentation of the weasel program (and, trivially, the misspelling of "methinks" as "me thinks" in the target string) has been "forthcoming" in the Wistar Retrospective proceedings for quite a time. Dawkins' program is an instance of what folks in evolutionary computation know as a (1, ?)-ES [evolution strategy].

How does the weasel program know the space of strings on which fitness is defined? How does it know that fitness evaluation of some strings is not impractically slow? How does it know that lower "fitness" values are better than higher values? How does it know to terminate when it obtains a string of zero fitness? The weasel program, like most optimization programs, is highly informed of the optimization problem. (And I have said nothing about the fitness function guiding the program to the target string.)

Dembski is blinkered by his agenda, but he's not wrong in all points he raises. He got me to ponder what optimization procedures know about problems, and this led me to see that the NFL analytic framework predicates considerable prior knowledge. Take away some of that prior knowledge, and there are huge performance distinctions among optimization procedures. This is not a fine theoretical point. Wolpert and Macready's constraints on optimization problems are in no sense natural.

Wes, I told you last fall that I thought I had major results on the way. It turned out that I had to beat my sub-genius head against the wall quite a few more times to "break on through to the other side." At the moment, I'm preparing for a job interview, and I'm trying to work what I have into a crystal-clear presetation. When I'm through with that, I'll write a paper. I would appreciate it if you were to read a draft and give me feedback.

--------------
I never give them hell. I just tell the truth about them, and they think it's hell. — Harry S Truman

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2008,14:27   

I have no idea what the population size is in weasel, but let's say it's too large for inspection by a human over the Internet.

Suppose each page view is treated as and encounter with a reasonable sized tribe, and the web player is designated as a predator, choosing some to eliminate, or food, choosing some to survive and replace those that are eliminated. The host would dole out the roles so that the population size remains stable.

On any given page view, the host program selects an individual at random and builds a tribe of those most nearly matching it. The player sees the tribe -- say 50 or 100 individuals -- and selects some for reproduction or elimination.

At the host end the population would be in continuous flux; there would be no "rounds" affection the entire population at once.

From the player's perspective, the "genome" would be beyond the control of any particular player. Depending on the population size, a player might never see the same string or same tribe twice.

OK, so I'm nuts, but I think with some tinkering, you could build a game that would have interesting results.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2008,14:48   

Of course, ID's victory will be 'stimulating more research' ergo "teach the controversy"...

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
goalpost



Posts: 2
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2008,15:30   

Quote (dogdidit @ Aug. 27 2008,13:17)

 
Quote (goalpost @ Aug. 27 2008,12:21)
Ok, so I send two messages:

Both messages contain a human DNA sequence - ACGT etc etc, each letter coded as two bits, ie 00 = A, 01 = C, 10 = G, 11 = T. This message is non-compressible.

Actually, it is very compressible if it is a DNA sequence, since codons (triplets of base pairs) code for only 22 possible states - start, stop, and twenty amino acids - even though the symbol set could accommodate 64. So the real measure of information in DNA is no more than 4.5 bits (log2 of 22) for every three base pairs, not 6 bits (log2 of 64).

You're quite correct, I forgot about that bit. Let me rephrase the question, then:
I send 2 messages, both DNA sequences as before. Each is coded in such a way that it may not be further compressed. Each is of the same length, and contains the same number of DNA triplets.

One has 'usefulness'  - it codes for a protein. The other doesn't.
Does the 'useful' message contain any more information by virtue of its 'usefulness'?

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2008,15:46   

Quote (goalpost @ Aug. 29 2008,15:30)
Does the 'useful' message contain any more information by virtue of its 'usefulness'?

When this comes up I'm always reminded of Hofstadter's example of sending a vinyl record into space.

I can't see where this is going  :p

  
dogdidit



Posts: 315
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2008,18:06   

Quote (goalpost @ Aug. 29 2008,15:30)
       
Quote (dogdidit @ Aug. 27 2008,13:17)

         
Quote (goalpost @ Aug. 27 2008,12:21)
Ok, so I send two messages:

Both messages contain a human DNA sequence - ACGT etc etc, each letter coded as two bits, ie 00 = A, 01 = C, 10 = G, 11 = T. This message is non-compressible.

Actually, it is very compressible if it is a DNA sequence, since codons (triplets of base pairs) code for only 22 possible states - start, stop, and twenty amino acids - even though the symbol set could accommodate 64. So the real measure of information in DNA is no more than 4.5 bits (log2 of 22) for every three base pairs, not 6 bits (log2 of 64).

You're quite correct, I forgot about that bit. Let me rephrase the question, then:
I send 2 messages, both DNA sequences as before. Each is coded in such a way that it may not be further compressed. Each is of the same length, and contains the same number of DNA triplets.

One has 'usefulness'  - it codes for a protein. The other doesn't.
Does the 'useful' message contain any more information by virtue of its 'usefulness'?

The challenge is coming to an acceptable definition of "information". Shannon's definition had to do with the entropy of the source, but this is a bit confusing because "entropy" is a poorly understood concept (at least, for me) so I prefer to think of the measure information as the reduction in uncertainty at the receiver (which is also consistent with Shannon's interpretation).

If you are sending me a symbol, and I have no idea what it might be, then each bit of information you send represents a reduction of 50% in my uncertainty. (I'm assuming that we are dealing with symbols selected from a finite and discrete set.) Let's assume you are sending a hexadecimal number in binary format. I expect to receive xxxx but I have no idea if the x's are 1's or 0's, so my uncertainty at the outset is that the symbol belongs to one of sixteen possible states, from 0 to 15. Your first bit -- let's assume it's a 1 -- cuts my uncertainty in half, since now I know that the symbol is of the form 1xxx and therefore the set [0 7] are ruled out and the symbol must lie in [8 15]. Eight possible states; half as many as before. Half the uncertainty.

Notice that at no time do I rule that your message is cogent or noise. A 1,000-character post on AtBC contains the same quantity of "information" as a 1,000-character post on UD (shudder!! except we also know that the UD can't be a post from kairosfocus) if both are written in the same language.

Applying this to DNA (and here I wander out of engineering and into microbiology - ALERT! ALERT!), mRNA (m = message!) is a message from the cell nucleus to the ribosome: "Here. Make this protein". The ribosome will read the mRNA three bases at a time and use those triplets (codons) to determine* which amino acid to append to the polymer it is assembling. It does not care whether the polymer is useful or toxic or garbage or a viroid. The semantics of the message are irrelevant to the measure of information.

* I'm overlooking the role of tRNA and the myriad other helper molecules that help make the magic happen.

In information theory, there is AFAIK no way to measure the "usefulness" of the message. (Is a viroid useful? To the virus, it is. Are point mutations useful?) The IDers might wish to extend information theory to do just that, but so far they've not come up with the goods. "FCSI" and other concoctions appear to me as just so much unsubstantiated wishful thinking. I appreciate their desire to distinguish between "useful" and "useless" information but the science does not help them and they have not extended the science to do so. Invoking "information theory" in the defense of their efforts is nothing more than intellectual hi-jacking.

Claude Shannon was a brilliant man, and Bell Labs was the "Google" of it's day. Interestingly enough, his doctoral thesis was An Algebra for Theoretical Genetics. However, as far as I can tell he earned only one doctorate.

--------------
"Humans carry plants and animals all over the globe, thus introducing them to places they could never have reached on their own. That certainly increases biodiversity." - D'OL

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2008,22:37   

I think what you guys need is a real IDer here so that you don't become all back-slapping and self-congratulatory with no one to challenge your silliness.  So for this I offer my services.

The problem I have with the weasel example is that it uses a predetermined and easily obtainable goal - so it really does nothing to bolster the argument for the power of RM+NS.  I think that a realistic model--one that has many more obstacles to overcome--would be much more convincing.  

Are there any genetic algorithms that you can point me to that closely resemble the actual processes involved in RM+NS evolution of something as complex as a cell?  Or say part of a cell - mitochondria?  Or maybe just a flagellum?  Or maybe just the flagellar motor?

I think we all can agree that our 26 letter alphabet, along with punctuation, spaces, etc., are a pretty close analogue (for this purpose anyway) for the amino acids used in life's systems.  And that words, phrases, sentences, etc., are a fairly good analogue for proteins.  While paragraphs, chapters, books, etc., make a passable analogue for cellular systems.

Therefore, I would think that a better selection criteria (as far as mimicking RM+NS and real world evolution) would be to start with a string of random letters, punctuation marks and spaces--maybe a million characters long--under constant mutation; select from this anything that functions as a word, a phrase, or a sentence; combine these fragments randomly into longer passages, selecting all the while for grammatical function, until you have cohesive paragraphs, then chapters, with the end result being a cohesive novel.

Wouldn't that be more in line with the origin of a simple cellular system via RM+NS?

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2008,22:50   

The travelling salesman problem does not have a predetermined solution. It doesn't even have a single solution.

There's a patent issued for an electronic circuit designed by a genetic algorithm.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2008,23:35   

Hi Daniel. Did you see the steiner tree debate or have you seen Zach's word mutagenation?

http://www.zachriel.com/mutagenation/

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2008,23:37   

Quote
I think we all can agree that our 26 letter alphabet, along with punctuation, spaces, etc., are a pretty close analogue (for this purpose anyway) for the amino acids used in life's systems.


I would be very surprised if a biologist were to agree with that. A letter is a symbol with no intrinsic meaning of its own. An amino acid is a chemical that reacts with other chemicals.

Quote
The problem I have with the weasel example is that it uses a predetermined and easily obtainable goal


The only point to that program was selection vs. random search; it was never intended as a simulation of real evolution.

Quote
I think that a realistic model--one that has many more obstacles to overcome--would be much more convincing.


That I'd agree with. In natural evolution there are bound to be lots of those obstacles, and the "solutions" sometimes conflict with each other, if only in that using more resources for one thing reduces the resources that are available for other things. If the situation remains stable long enough some sort of equilibrium might occur among the various factors.

Henry

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2008,04:44   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Aug. 29 2008,22:37)
Wouldn't that be more in line with the origin of a simple cellular system via RM+NS?

Would it? Why don't you tell us Daniel, you just suggested it.

Tell me, what "function" would this Novel that you suggest that will evolve, perform?

EDIT:
Quote
The problem I have with the weasel example is that it uses a predetermined and easily obtainable goal


Daniel, simple question - have you read the book that the weasel example appears in?

If you had I suspect that you would not be making the statements you are making.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2008,12:47   

To answer the questions:  No I have not read "The Blind Watchmaker" so I don't know what Dawkins' purpose was.  I'm assuming it was an attempt to show that RM+AS could produce meaningful information.

As for Zach's word mutagenation, I haven't read the whole thing, but I'm starting to see how equating words to real evolution might be problematic.  What do the letters represent?  Do they represent amino acids?  Are words proteins?  If so, then how do these examples from the English language mirror real world biochemical systems?  For instance, words can be put together rather randomly and give some sort of meaning, but can biological systems be built this way - especially within living organisms?  Can you randomly insert new proteins into a cascading systems such as blood clotting and have it work?  Or is the English language much more forgiving than living systems are?  Let's just say that you can insert a new protein into the blood clotting system and have the system actually change its function to something besides blood clotting.  What are the side effects of such a change?  The organism has a new function, yet it bleeds to death.  Is it selected for?  Doubtful.  I think that all in all, the English language is more forgiving.  No one dies when words are jumbled.  Of course there are peripheral, non-essential systems for which random changes might be tolerated - much more in keeping with the English language.  But this merely slides the problem sideways.  How did the essential systems originate?  Were all essential systems at one time non-essential?  If so, how did they become essential?

I guess my problem is one of accuracy: what do these examples represent in regard to real world evolution?

For instance, what is the purpose of the weasel example?  How does it apply to any argument about origins?  After all isn't that what all the debate is really about anyway?  It's not about whether random mutations can modify or improve something: it's about whether or not random mutations can create something new.  It's about the process--including all the intermediate steps--by which random mutations creates new functional biochemical systems.  So, with the weasel example, what does METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL  represent?  Is it like a chain of amino acids that makes up a specific protein?  Perhaps the last piece of a "protein puzzle" that will alter the way an organism fights disease?  If so, then what does ME SOMNSISN HE L DHIEJWEAMFK represent?  Some of the letters are in the correct places, so is it an amino acid chain that doesn't quite become a protein, or one that folds into a different shape with different charges and characteristics?  More importantly, why would the second example be selected?  Are amino acid chains that don't make up specific proteins selected for - simply because they show potential?  If some of the amino acids are in the correct place for a future, potential protein, does the cellular machinery set it aside for future use?  Is that mutation guaranteed to be passed on?  On what basis?  I don't think so, but I could be wrong.

Of course the weasel example could have nothing to do with real world evolution, so none of the above would apply.  If so, then why bother bringing it up?  Why is it even out there?  What does it prove?  Why is it relevant to the discussion?

As far as I'm concerned, all this talk about information, complexity, and specificity is irrelevant if it doesn't apply to real world biochemical systems.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2008,13:30   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Aug. 30 2008,12:47)
 Are amino acid chains that don't make up specific proteins selected for - simply because they show potential?  

No, a gene (not a protein) is "selected" if its product improves its replication rate in the population, by definition.

And whether it contains more or less "information" is completely irrelevant.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2008,15:37   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Aug. 30 2008,12:47)
 Were all essential systems at one time non-essential?  If so, how did they become essential?



How to build an arch

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2008,15:38   

Quote

For instance, what is the purpose of the weasel example?


RTFB.

You'd be whining ad nauseum if someone were offering an opinion on Schindewald without reading his work, so suck it up and learn something about what you presume to criticize.

All I've seen from you is trollage.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2008,15:44   

Uninformed trolling is being automatically redirected to the Bathroom Wall.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2008,16:34   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Aug. 30 2008,12:47)
As for Zach's word mutagenation, I haven't read the whole thing...

Try the open source software instead. (Requires Excel. Unzip before running.)

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Aug. 30 2008,12:47)
... but I'm starting to see how equating words to real evolution might be problematic.

Quite so. Word Mutagenation doesn't represent biological evolution. It represents claims frequently made by Intelligent Design Advocates. In particular, Sean Pitman claimed that if you "start with a short 2 or 3-letter word and see how many words you can evolve that require greater and greater minimum sequence requirements. No doubt you will quickly find yourself coming to walls of meaningless or non-beneficial potential options that separate you from every other meaningful and beneficial option." So I tested it.

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Aug. 30 2008,12:47)
Or is the English language much more forgiving than living systems are?

Words can be very fragile. The proportion of valid 10-letter words among 10-letter sequences is only about one in ten billion. Testing at a few thousand per second (the working rate of Word Mutagenation) would take days to find even one 10-letter word. Yet, Word Mutagenation does it easily in seconds. The reason the "Big Number Calculation" is misleading is because the assumptions about how an evolutionary algorithm works are wrong.

The concept is that words may be separated in the vastness of sequence space, but that they are joined by a common descent to much shorter sequences and are composed of common subunits that can be combined in various ways. What results are very subtle combinations of letters and syllables—which are often irreducibly complex! Once you understand this, then you will see why the ID Argument is faulty.

I have also tested this with Phrasenation. It is even more fragile as sequences must be exact matches from Hamlet. Sequences beyond Dembski's Universal Probability Bound are possible. And that with a toy running very inefficient software.

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Aug. 30 2008,12:47)
I think that all in all, the English language is more forgiving.  No one dies when words are jumbled.

Actually, in Word Mutagenation, that's exactly what happens. Let's say we have a word "can". It mutates to "pan". It lives and competes for space in the population. Let's say it mutates to "cxn". It's still-born.

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Aug. 30 2008,12:47)
I guess my problem is one of accuracy: what do these examples represent in regard to real world evolution?

Not much, but Word Mutagenation is one of a class of evolutionary algorithms, and biological evolution can be modeled, in part, as an evolutionary algorithm.



Quote (Daniel Smith @ Aug. 30 2008,12:47)
As far as I'm concerned, all this talk about information, complexity, and specificity is irrelevant if it doesn't apply to real world biochemical systems.

You have it now! That's why most such claims made by ID Advocates are vacuous, or just false.

--
Edited Big Number Arithmetic above.

Length     Big Number    Mutagenation

10-letter      7 days        2-3 seconds
11-letter    239 days        5-10 seconds
12-letter     25 years       minute or two


There's a random element so Mutagenation results vary somewhat.


--------------

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2008,17:12   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Aug. 30 2008,12:47)
Of course the weasel example could have nothing to do with real world evolution, so none of the above would apply.  If so, then why bother bringing it up?  Why is it even out there?  What does it prove?  Why is it relevant to the discussion?

By demolishing things that weasel never claimed to prove in the first place and by attaching undue importance to it and making all sorts of misrepresentations about what it claims to represent, then "disproving" those claims, well it gives people who've no better arguments then that who want to disprove "evolution" something to feel good about. And it's "disproof" is useful for those doubters who need to be fooled by a bit of science "find the lady" con trickery, rather then just take Dembski et al at their word. Some won't be fooled.

Many will. For example:

site:http://www.uncommondescent.com weasel



--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2008,14:34   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 30 2008,13:38)

You'd be whining ad nauseum if someone were offering an opinion on Schindewald without reading his work, so suck it up and learn something about what you presume to criticize.

Did you mean "Schindewolf"?  
I don't remember anyone here actually reading Schindewolf's book all the way through before they took to criticizing his work.  I know some who read a few chapters, others read Gould's foreword, yet I don't remeber one who began a counterargument with the statement "I'm thoroughly familiar with Schindewolf's work and I find it..."  Did you read his book?
If not, then don't be a hypocrite: allow the uninformed debate to continue.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2008,15:02   

Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 30 2008,14:34)
         
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Aug. 30 2008,12:47)
I guess my problem is one of accuracy: what do these examples represent in regard to real world evolution?

Not much, but Word Mutagenation is one of a class of evolutionary algorithms, and biological evolution can be modeled, in part, as an evolutionary algorithm.

This is really the only debate I'm interested in.  I'd be intensely interested in an algorithm that mirrors real biological evolution.  I'm not really that interested at all in the debate about words - unless there's something that can be shown analogous to real world (non-theoretical) evolution.  (Although I will download and play with your program.)

I guess what I'm saying is that every living organism and every organ is said to be the result of evolution.  What I'd like to see is a detailed account of how any one of these organs or organisms (or even the most basic biochemical systems within them) originated via evolution.  I'd like to see a step-by-step analysis of evolution in action.  What was the precursor?  What were the intermediate steps?  Why were they selected?  

For instance, it's often said that lungs evolved from swim bladders.  So...
What were the specific biochemical steps?  Are lungs and swim bladders made of the same proteins?  What are the differences?  How was each difference created step by viable step?  What was the selective advantage for each?  Can these steps be recreated or verified in the lab?  Are these steps able to be specified down to the biochemical level?  What is the evidence in support from other fields such as paleontology?  

IOW, can you get here from there?  Are there any biological algorithms that will let you plug in "swim bladder" and get "lungs" as a result?  Is anyone even working on the problem?  Or are the conclusions assumed?

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2008,18:33   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Aug. 31 2008,14:34)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 30 2008,13:38)

You'd be whining ad nauseum if someone were offering an opinion on Schindewald without reading his work, so suck it up and learn something about what you presume to criticize.

Did you mean "Schindewolf"?  
I don't remember anyone here actually reading Schindewolf's book all the way through before they took to criticizing his work.

Did you read it all the way through before touting it, Dan?
Quote
I know some who read a few chapters, others read Gould's foreword, yet I don't remeber one who began a counterargument with the statement "I'm thoroughly familiar with Schindewolf's work and I find it..."

Would one have to have done so to counter any of your inane arguments?

  
  127 replies since Aug. 26 2008,14:35 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (5) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]